What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710151?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $990.00 (5257769-003) to Adele Hine

How much money was awarded in case 4710151?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710151?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10112515-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710151?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $990.00 (5257769-003) to Adele Hine

How much money was awarded in case 4710151?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710151?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10112515-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

117 Charlotte Crescent, Mayfair, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4710151 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by Ms Pirret.

Ruth Fulford was named as a party to the application as landlord and also appeared, though she really had no idea why she had been so named.

Ms Fulford was, but is no longer, a trustee of the Wick AD Trust, which was a party to previous Tribunal proceedings. She is identified as one of the plaintiffs in a District Court application filed by the landlord in respect of the tenancy.

Ms Fulford is not however named as a party to the tenancy agreement which identifies the landlord as “Hawkes Bay Realties (2000) Limited as agent for John Fickling.”

Whatever the position with the District Court proceedings, about which I have little helpful information, I see no basis in the evidence for Ms Fulford being a party to this application. Background

This matter appears to have a long history. Several applications to the Tribunal have been made (applications 4084820, 4112783, 4110392).

I understand that since those, applications were determined, application was made to the District Court by the landlord, in the course of which a settlement was reached. It appears that no Orders were made by the District Court, by consent or otherwise, and that application was been struck out as the landlord did not appear in support of the claims. I have no documentation concerning the terms of any agreement reached. This Application

In this application the tenants seek: a. Payment of the bond to them; b. Reimbursement of legal costs incurred in the District Court proceedings; c. Reimbursement of payments made under the settlement agreement which the tenants say was induced by the landlord’s misrepresentations about the market rent for the premises. Bond

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim.

There are no extant proceedings in the Tribunal or the District Court and no Orders that I am aware of as to how the bond is to be applied.

That being so, had the landlord wished to contest this application he was required to lodge an application setting out his claim against the bons. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant.

That does not prevent the landlord bringing any further compensation claims, simply that there is no bond available to be applied to any successful claims. Costs

The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to make an Order for costs in relation to proceedings in the District Court. That is something the tenants could have raised in the course of those proceedings when the landlord’s claim was struck out.

Equally, three is no basis provided in the evidence for the Tribunal to set aside or be able to set aside, the terms of a settlement reached in the course of the District Court proceedings.

Those claims are dismissed.

No Order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Reasons